9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1170 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Inadmissible ITC - Passing on fraudulent ITC to the petitioner without payment of tax - HELD THAT - The present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The only ground taken for not filing appeal is that before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner will have to deposit 10 percent of the disputed amount as per Section 107 (5) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that as per copy of ledger book (P-5 and P-6), the petitioner is not liable to pre-deposit 10 per cent of the disputed amount. However, the petitioner can take all the pleas before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority can consider the question of pre-deposit of amount, after examining the ledger book. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the quashing of an order and a show cause notice related to alleged inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the CGST Act, 2017 and PGST Act, 2017. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Order and Show Cause Notice The petitioner, a proprietorship concern trading in iron and steel goods, sought to quash an order dated 18.05.2021 and a show cause notice dated 09.04.2021. The respondent-department raised a tax demand against the petitioner for purchases made from suppliers allegedly connected to a person arrested under Section 132 of the Act. The petitioner disputed the alleged inadmissible ITC and the taxable value of goods purchased from the suppliers. Issue 2: Lack of Opportunity of Hearing The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the taxable supply amount and ITC claimed were incorrect as per their books of account. Issue 3: Alternative Remedy of Filing an Appeal The court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order. The petitioner's challenge to the requirement of depositing 10 percent of the disputed amount before the Appellate Authority was dismissed. The court held that the Appellate Authority could consider the question of pre-deposit after examining the ledger books provided by the petitioner. Conclusion The writ petition seeking to quash the order and show cause notice was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority to contest the requirement of depositing 10 percent of the disputed amount based on the ledger books submitted.
|
